Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Primal Diet vs. Sustainability page 4

  1. #31
    Shotglass's Avatar
    Shotglass is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    38
    Primal Fuel
    Sustainability?!?!
    There are approximately 7.1 BILLION people on the planet. Do you really think that ANYTHING implemented globally would be sustainable?
    GMAB!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
    Don't be so concerned about yesterday, or worried about tomorrow, that you forget to enjoy today.

  2. #32
    Knifegill's Avatar
    Knifegill is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,940
    i am paleo but i make my living teaching people how to identify and eat wild plants. A lot of vegetarians sign up for my classes and i hear this view often. I think it includes many assumptions. Let me address just one. Vegetarians assume more plants grown for food is better than more animals being raised for food. It goes along the lines of if we take a 100,000 acres out of beef production and put it into plant production we can feed a more people. That's assertion needs one more word: We can feed more people poorly. Increasing carb production never means people eat better. It never means more people eat better. It always means more people will eat poorly. Producing more carbs does not translate into healthier people or more people fed better. It just means more people eating poorly. That does not seem to me to be positive or "sustainable."

    of course the real problem is too many people. Increasing the food supply is the bandaid on the infected wound. We have gmos and agri-business producing huge amounts of grain because there are so many people. Vegetarians like to paint meat eaters and their food animals as the problem. It is not: It is too many people and we have that because of grain production. More grain production only means more people. That is not a solution. It's making the problem worse. Getting rid of food animals is not a solution. That means less healthy people. Population reduction is the solution. Humanity however is not yet committed or desparate enough to use the solution.
    x2.


    Turquoisepassion:
    Knifegill is christened to be high carb now!
    notontherug:
    the buttstuff...never interested.
    He gives me Lamprey Kisses in the midnight sea
    Flubby tubby gums latching onto me
    For all that I've done wrong, I mastodon something right...

    My pony picture thread http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread82786.html

  3. #33
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    920
    Another Simple Question: The Paleo Diet is Not The Way to a Healthy Future <i>For Whom?</i> | Free The Animal
    That. I am here to outcompete, not to coexist. Other humans are my competition, not my equals. The further from me and my family they are, the less they matter.
    --
    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

    --
    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
    I'd apologize, but...

  4. #34
    Deadpedal's Avatar
    Deadpedal is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    12
    http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ove...king-of-a-myth

    And

    Julian Simon: human race will find a way to overcome TRUE problems.

  5. #35
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotglass View Post
    Sustainability?!?!
    There are approximately 7.1 BILLION people on the planet. Do you really think that ANYTHING implemented globally would be sustainable?
    GMAB!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
    Of course not. That's the very point. The only way to stabilize and decrease the population is to stop increasing the food supply. Now we create those people out of food, and we create that food out of fossil fuels. We expend up to 10 kCal of energy to produce a single kCal of food. When the fossil fuel runs out, catastrophe will ensue.

    Unless we go back to getting our food from local farms that have to, by their nature, exist only where the land permits it. The midwest could return to prairie. The fertile crescent could be fertile again. The topsoil wouldn't be salinified to desert by irrigation. And of course there couldn't be 7.1 billion of us. But if we were to slowly decrease the amount of un-arable land that we force to grow monocot seeds, there wouldn't be mass famine in the developed world. If we capped the food production at current levels, we'd have 7.1 billion people for as long as we produce the same amount of food. If we produced a little bit less food the next year, there would be just less than 7.1 billion the following year.

    We understand that the available food sources limit the population of every animal on the planet but us. Why do we think the laws of "nature" don't apply to us? We aren't made of rocks and rainbows. We're made of food just like the rest. Fossil food. 6.5 billion or so of us are nothing but fossil people.

    Stop feeding the starving millions and there will cease to be starving millions. Africa has so outstripped its carrying capacity that famine is a daily reality. And feeding the starving isn't kind, it's lucrative. But it results in a greater population of starving people every time. We've run this experiment every year for 10,000 years and every year we are shocked that the starving millions remain stubbornly unfed. If we acknowledge that it couldn't be otherwise, that birth control is a solution for individuals, but make 0 difference to populations, that we're the earth's subjects, not its masters, there might be a chance for us to avoid a really exciting catastrophe. Otherwise, not.

  6. #36
    Greenbeast's Avatar
    Greenbeast is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    539
    Good post.

  7. #37
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Deane View Post
    More grain production only means more people. That is not a solution. It's making the problem worse. Getting rid of food animals is not a solution. That means less healthy people. Population reduction is the solution. Humanity however is not yet committed or desparate enough to use the solution.
    You have studied history!

    Population reduction is the answer to a whole lot of questions.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •